Mike Rounds, Rick Weiland differ on voting rights ruling

Jul. 3, 2013

Written by

Last week’s U.S. Supreme Court decisions divided South Dakota’s U.S. Senate candidates along partisan lines.

The ruling overturning part of the Voting Rights Act was “a victory for South Dakota,” Republican Mike Rounds said, while Democrat Rick Weiland said it could open the doors for disenfranchising voters.

Their opinions were reversed on the Supreme Court decision letting same-sex couples receive federal marriage benefits. Weiland called it a “step in the right direction,” but Rounds said it was disappointing.

In Shelby County v. Holder, a five-justice majority tossed out the part of the Voting Rights Act that singled out some territories — including two reservation counties in South Dakota, along with many parts of the South — for special scrutiny over voting laws. Those areas had to get “pre-clearance” from the Department of Justice before changing voting laws, to ensure they aren’t trying to disenfranchise minorities.

Rounds said the ruling reflects both states’ rights and steps he said South Dakota had taken to protect voters.

“There’s a recognition once again that states clearly have rights, and that there is a separation of powers between the federal government and the states,” Rounds said. “It suggests strongly that there have been major reforms made and major efforts made to be very certain that no one is stopped from being able to vote. I think that is critical.”

Weiland disagreed.

“We’re going to have to see how this plays out, but it concerns me in any state, whether it’s South Dakota or Alabama, if there are roadblocks that are set up to discourage from voting,” Weiland said. “What the court’s done is they’ve opened it up now to allow various efforts to discourage voting in this country, or various efforts to discourage protection of the right to vote. I think that’s a big mistake.”

The preclearance requirement, Rounds said, was unnecessary in South Dakota.

“The protections that the state of South Dakota has put in place are good protections,” Rounds said.

He argued some of the federally mandated voting law changes actually hurt Native Americans, saying new district lines drawn as a result of that process led to fewer Native lawmakers by packing more Native Americans into a handful of districts.

(Page 2 of 2)

Weiland said he thinks the Voting Rights Act was fine how it was — and still needed to protect minorities.

“I don’t think we’ve advanced as far as the court determined, in terms of no longer needing the Voting Rights Act,” he said.

The two candidates had less pronounced disagreements on United States v. Windsor, the Supreme Court decision overturning part of the federal Defense of Marriage Act. That decision means legally married same-sex couples now will be recognized by the federal government for various benefits married couples receive.

Weiland praised that decision.

“I think American citizens should have all the rights they’re entitled to under the law. That includes people of all genders, races, religions and sexual orientations,” Weiland said.

He supports same-sex marriage and said he thinks the Supreme Court decision “moves the needle in terms of marriage equality,” using a term for same-sex marriage favored by its proponents.

Rounds is opposed to same-sex marriage, believing that “marriage is between a man and a woman.”

But he said he was of two minds about the DOMA decision.

“I’m not happy that the congressional activity with regards to DOMA was overturned, but I also understand the logic that the court used to overturn it,” Rounds said.

The Windsor decision seems like it will restore rights to the states concerning marriage, Rounds said, and he called that a possible “silver lining” in the decision.